American Politics

[Sanity Check]

This is honestly the weirdest projection I've seen in a while. I mean sure, maybe you see this in the film, but the real allegory is right there in the title of the film... It's much easier to chalk up the absurdity in the narrative to it not being a very great film rather than looking for any specific political commentary...

What's "weird" about it?

I wish women in the middle east, africa and india could legally own guns and use them to defend themselves.

Rape statistics for those nations would decline significantly.

We've seen how many in the USA can no longer rely on police or the government to protect them. The natural solution is for people to be armed so they can defend themselves.

Yet somehow the left convinces people guns have no place in this modern world. Which would not seem to fit the evidence, in my opinion.

 

[xi0]

What's "weird" about it?

I wish women in the middle east, africa and india could legally own guns and use them to defend themselves.

Rape statistics for those nations would decline significantly.

We've seen how many in the USA can no longer rely on police or the government to protect them. The natural solution is for people to be armed so they can defend themselves.

Yet somehow the left convinces people guns have no place in this modern world. Which would not seem to fit the evidence, in my opinion.

Because acting like a script from Hollywood is written that has an deliberate interpretation making fun of anti-gun policy is pretty absurd. No, it's just stupid writing. But hey, I guess if you think the shoe fits...

The rest of this post is really just conjecture based on NRA talking points. I must ask, do you even own a gun? If you don't, why not? Certainly it's much more effective than 911 right?

I really don't see gun control as being a leftist policy. It polls very well even among conservatives. It's the lobby representing the manufacturers that act like the second amendment is in jeopardy. That's obviously intentional.

 

[M3J]

What's "weird" about it?

I wish women in the middle east, africa and india could legally own guns and use them to defend themselves.

Rape statistics for those nations would decline significantly.

We've seen how many in the USA can no longer rely on police or the government to protect them. The natural solution is for people to be armed so they can defend themselves.

Yet somehow the left convinces people guns have no place in this modern world. Which would not seem to fit the evidence, in my opinion.

No you don't, you're just using them as an agenda.

It still wouldn't stop men from owning guns either or using it. And if he draws first, the women would have to choose between drawing and hoping they can get a shot off or get away safely or trying to find the right moment to pull a gun where a guy can't shoot at her and hit. This is a shitty solution and works only if women pull their guns first, aren't outnumbered, and can get out safely.

 

[kkck]

Was he? I thought he was kind of neutral/pro-Black people, but not a racist, or was that whitewashed too?

IIRC Lincoln's camp was more along the lines of "Lets send the blacks back home to africa". Though it's a tad unfair to judge the guy through modern lenses and his overall positions were pretty progressive for someone of his time.

 

[Sanity Check]

Because acting like a script from Hollywood is written that has an deliberate interpretation making fun of anti-gun policy is pretty absurd. No, it's just stupid writing. But hey, I guess if you think the shoe fits...

The rest of this post is really just conjecture based on NRA talking points. I must ask, do you even own a gun? If you don't, why not? Certainly it's much more effective than 911 right?

I really don't see gun control as being a leftist policy. It polls very well even among conservatives. It's the lobby representing the manufacturers that act like the second amendment is in jeopardy. That's obviously intentional.

My US state has some of the harshest gun regulation laws in the country. When I was young, one of my dad's friends was living in his van. He had a full auto uzi to defend himself. Which is worse than an assault rifle.

I think that says how useful gun regulation is. Whenever a drug dealer or criminal is arrested or shot, here. They always have guns they obtained illegally, body armor and whatever else. In a lot of cases, the criminals are better armed and equipped than the police. Despite harsh gun regulation. Many other states like illinois are the same.

AFAIK the biggest mass shooting in history happened in paris -- a "gun free" zone:

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No you don't, you're just using them as an agenda.

It still wouldn't stop men from owning guns either or using it. And if he draws first, the women would have to choose between drawing and hoping they can get a shot off or get away safely or trying to find the right moment to pull a gun where a guy can't shoot at her and hit. This is a shitty solution and works only if women pull their guns first, aren't outnumbered, and can get out safely.

How is suggesting women in countries with bad rape statistics, own and use guns to defend themselves.

"Using them as an agenda."

Explain this, please. I don't get it at all.

 

[ninjabot]

Because acting like a script from Hollywood is written that has an deliberate interpretation making fun of anti-gun policy is pretty absurd

Only Kevin Sorbo Can Protect the Second Amendment in the Bonkers First Trailer for 'The Reliant' - RELEVANT

Kevin Sorbo is here to take aim at some of the most complex, nuanced issues of the day with extreme prejudice.

www.relevantmagazine.com

Not a Hollywood movie but uh... it's pretty god damn funny so I thought it required a linking.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 24, 2021, Original Post Date: Jul 24, 2021 ---

IIRC Lincoln's camp was more along the lines of "Lets send the blacks back home to africa". Though it's a tad unfair to judge the guy through modern lenses and his overall positions were pretty progressive for someone of his time.

Whoawhoawhoa.

Did you by any chance ever see what he said concerning black people at one of his speeches?

Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois; September 18, 1858

www.nps.gov

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible.

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

 

[M3J]

Because you don't give a shit about them, you're just using them to defend guns. Republicans often do this and argue like this, they pretend to care about something like homeless people to argue against something like allowing refugees in, which is often an 180 from their usual views.

 

[Sanity Check]

Because you don't give a shit about them, you're just using them to defend guns. Republicans often do this and argue like this, they pretend to care about something like homeless people to argue against something like allowing refugees in, which is often an 180 from their usual views.

That is a somewhat dark perspective to have.

Would you say its impossible for a person, to want to do good for others, without it being motivated by personal gain?

 

[xi0]

My US state has some of the harshest gun regulation laws in the country. When I was young, one of my dad's friends was living in his van. He had a full auto uzi to defend himself. Which is worse than an assault rifle.

I think that says how useful gun regulation is. Whenever a drug dealer or criminal is arrested or shot, here. They always have guns they obtained illegally, body armor and whatever else. In a lot of cases, the criminals are better armed and equipped than the police. Despite harsh gun regulation. Many other states like illinois are the same.

I would beg to differ calling an Uzi worse than an AR, but I digress.

Different places have different challenges. The issue isn't solved solely with gun reform, the decriminalization of drugs would also help, as an example. I think the sheer proliferation of illegally owned weapons is itself a problem with a lack of meaningful gun control or registration. Plenty of those illegally owned weapons were legally bought at one point. But if there's no universal database to track them, it's only natural where they tend to end up.

 

[Newkerzy]

I would beg to differ calling an Uzi worse than an AR, but I digress.

Different places have different challenges. The issue isn't solved solely with gun reform, the decriminalization of drugs would also help, as an example. I think the sheer proliferation of illegally owned weapons is itself a problem with a lack of meaningful gun control or registration. Plenty of those illegally owned weapons were legally bought at one point. But if there's no universal database to track them, it's only natural where they tend to end up.

It’s worth noting the NRA has blocked any, and all attempts at forming a national database of gun ownership and tracking. And that’s how you get lunatics like Dylann Roof getting away with it until it’s too late.

 

[M3J]

That is a somewhat dark perspective to have.

Would you say its impossible for a person, to want to do good for others, without it being motivated by personal gain?

It is not a perspective though, it is a fact that the right has proven so many times. What'd they do after refugees stopped being the hot topic? Went back to ignoring and blaming the homeless for their situation.

For majority of the right, yes.

 

[Sanity Check]

It is not a perspective though, it is a fact that the right has proven so many times. What'd they do after refugees stopped being the hot topic? Went back to ignoring and blaming the homeless for their situation.

For majority of the right, yes.

I don't even know. What you're talking about.

Refugees? Hurr. Are you admitting you supported open borders?

Mass immigration into the USA made sense centuries ago back when there were many jobs america needed filled. America needed railroads to be built, mines to be dug to harvest minerals and metals. Construction was booming. There were more job openings than workers back then.

In 2021, mass immigration makes no sense, we have no jobs to give thousands of immigrants that want to move into the country. Many of them have no job qualifications and don't even speak the language.

"Ignoring and blaming the homeless." You could say that texas and florida want to prevent people from becoming homeless, which is why they refuse to impose COVID lockdowns on business and the economy.

The worst states for homelessness are blue states like california and new york.

 

[M3J]

Of course you don't know, I'm not surprised.

Justifying immigration because of jobs is pretty fucked up, immigrants are humans and should be allowed to enter a country, as long as they don't present any harm. Immigration makes sense no matter what year, and refugees are different from immigrants.

No, Texas and Florida are okay with people becoming homeless, they just don't want businesses to go bust. If Texas and Florida wanted to prevent homelessness, they'd be giving people more stimulus and reinforcing lockdowns, not lifting them and then putting lockdowns back in place when cases go up.

It's not the states, it's the cities given how populated LA, San Francisco, and NYC are. And those states and cities were also red at some point. Funnily, if you wanna bring it up, red states get money from blue states, and without these blue states, the red states would be in deep shit.

 

[Sanity Check]

If 500,000 illegal immigrants cross the border and reside in the USA. How do they support themselves? You say an unlimited number should be able to enter the country. But we can't support an unlimited number. What makes you think that's a good idea.

Florida never complied with pandemic lockdowns. Texas ending lockdowns, forced blue states to end theirs, to offer competitive terms to residents.

Stimulus isn't sustainable. A loop of taxing work to subsidize non work, is never sustainable over the long term. It is only self destructive to wealth equality and standard of living.

It is the states. The evidence for it is new yorkers and californians fleeing blue states to move to florida and texas. New york and california are losing seats in the house/senate while florida and texas are gaining seats.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 25, 2021, Original Post Date: Jul 25, 2021 ---

...

...


China Threatens to NUKE Japan


Food for thought: if china nukes japan.

Where will I get my manga/anime?

 

[SharkBait]

I don't know why a country would use a nuclear weapon in the age where biological agents that can cause pandemics can be deployed instead or Supersonic/HyperSonic/Intersonic/Intrasonic weapons (havana syndrome) can be used against state agents. Hacking and taking down of infrastructure too.

Nuclear weapons just seem like relics of the past now.

 

[M3J]

Nuclear weapons quickly destroy in mass, I think biological weapons take too long. Either way, both is fucked up

 

[kkck]

Nuclear and biological weapons would work differently and serve different purposes... Add to that, a biological weapon could easily come back to bite the deplorer in his ass. For a biological weapon to be effective it'd need to be like any other effective weapon. It'd need to be able to hit its intended target, be relatively safe for whoever is firing or deploying it, it would have to not spread indefinitely or mutate. And also not be redundant with conventional weapons.

 

[SharkBait]

Bio weapons can cripple infrastructure and reduce combat numbers and even the govt.

Nuclear weapons like any conventional weapon have limited scope and can be intercepted. You can also flee from it since you can see it.

By the time a bioweapon is detected youd have no idea the scope or where its at. Consider even just the white powder in the mail. Specific, targets, and can lead to a cripples govt.

Additionally the deployer of a bioweapom can have treatments and antidotes for themselves. They could even sell it or offer it as terms of surrender and negotiation.

Cant do the same with conventional weapons and infantry, reasons there are years long wars. Youre never attacking the actual people in command.

 

[M3J]

Nuclear and biological weapons would work differently and serve different purposes... Add to that, a biological weapon could easily come back to bite the deplorer in his ass. For a biological weapon to be effective it'd need to be like any other effective weapon. It'd need to be able to hit its intended target, be relatively safe for whoever is firing or deploying it, it would have to not spread indefinitely or mutate. And also not be redundant with conventional weapons.

Unless the person releasing the biological weapon is okay with sacrificing his life.

Bio weapons can cripple infrastructure and reduce combat numbers and even the govt.

Nuclear weapons like any conventional weapon have limited scope and can be intercepted. You can also flee from it since you can see it.

By the time a bioweapon is detected youd have no idea the scope or where its at. Consider even just the white powder in the mail. Specific, targets, and can lead to a cripples govt.

Additionally the deployer of a bioweapom can have treatments and antidotes for themselves. They could even sell it or offer it as terms of surrender and negotiation.

Cant do the same with conventional weapons and infantry, reasons there are years long wars. Youre never attacking the actual people in command.

There would have to be warning though, and peopel would have to be able to get out of the radius in time.

 

[SharkBait]

shut down

"are you a pedo congressman gaetz? congressman are you a pedo mr gaetz?!"